Rabbi Boteach Defends Palin's Use of 'Blood Libel'

Sarah
Palin was right to use the term "blood libel" in defending herself from
accusations that her heated political rhetoric had something to do with
the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, Rabbi Shmuley Boteach
argues in The Wall Street Journal, because the term refers to Jews
being falsely accused of murder--the important part is the innocence,
not the Jewishness. Boteach is continuing a debate
that has raged since Palin's video discussing the violence in Tuscon
was posted early Wednesday morning. In defending Palin Boteach joins Jewish academic and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz, who spoke out earlier this week. It seems that nearly every public
Palin statement generates controversy of some sort, but this is the
first time the culture warrior has gotten caught up in a hot-button
issue from the Dark Ages.

Boteach writes:

Murder is
humanity's most severe sin, and it is trivialized when an innocent party
is accused of the crime—especially when that party is a collective too
numerous to be defended individually. If Jews have learned anything in
their long history, it is that a false indictment of murder against any
group threatens every group.

But not everyone agrees with Boteach, who happens to find himself in the limelight quite often.

'Boteach Got It Right'Israel Matzav
writes. "We Jews don't have a monopoly on being smeared with blood
libels. But many of us can empathize with what Sarah Palin, Glenn Beck,
Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives have gone through this past week."

He's Spot On, Sheya
agrees. Blood libel "is an expression used for when someone is
innocently accused of participating in a murder or being an accessory
of. Jews don’t own the exclusive rights of this term. Jews would gladly
get rid of it, anyone who wants it can have it. In fact we’ll even throw
in the Holocaust for good measure."

About Time, Politico's Ben Smith writes. "It's not a celebrity controversy until Rabbi Shmuley Boteach has injected himself."

Boteach Is Starstruck, Steve M.
argues at No More Mister Nice Blog. Steve notes that Boteach's bio
under his op-ed does not mention a few of his books, like Kosher Sex,
Dating Secrets of the Ten Commandments, and The Michael Jackson Tapes: A
Tragic Icon Reveals His Soul in Intimate Conversation. "Boteach and
Jackson formed a short-lived charitable organization called Heal the
Kids, and gradually they drifted apart, but Boteach never stopped
defending him against charges of anti-Semitism. ... So he's skilled at
defending famous people against charges of anti-Semitism. The Palin
op-ed is a natural fit for him. ... And when Boteach isn't downplaying
famous people's anti-Semitic remarks he's sending out press releases
begging the media to interview him about Lindsay Lohan. The guy really
likes the limelight."

Palin Is Just Edgy, Paul Mirengoff
insists at Power Line. "Palin may be the first prominent politician to
have charged others with a 'blood libel' in the broad, modern sense of
the term. This shows her, once again, to be 'edgy.' But being edgy
doesn't necessarily mean acting improperly. Once a certain usage gains
acceptance in mainstream political discourse... I see no
obligation on the part of politicians to steer clear of that usage."

A Red Herring, The National Review's Jonah Goldberg
says. "I’ve decided to ratchet down my already very modest objection to
the term. While I still think it would have been better had she not
used the phrase, so much of the criticism of it is in bad faith. Her
intent was honorable and her point was right. ... She wasn’t even talking about 'the blood libel' but
warning against the creation of 'a blood libel,' which is exactly what
Krugman, Olberman & Co. were doing."

This article is from the archive of our partner The Wire.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.